Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Ashok Naitam and Bawji Hichami, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli for the murder of a child and causing disappearance of evidence. The prosecution case was that Maltabai Hichami, daughter of accused no.2, had a son out of wedlock with accused no.1. To avoid defamation, accused no.2 procured insecticide, but when it failed, accused no.1 throttled the child. Both accused buried the body. The villagers held a meeting where accused no.1 allegedly made an extra-judicial confession. The trial court convicted accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC and both under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The extra-judicial confession was not corroborated and appeared coerced. The medical evidence did not conclusively prove throttling. The chain of circumstances was incomplete. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and appellants acquitted. They were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Extra-Judicial Confession - Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside - The prosecution relied on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence to prove murder of a child by throttling - The court found that the extra-judicial confession was not voluntary and reliable, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete - Held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-15).
B) Criminal Law - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Section 201 IPC - Conviction set aside - The appellants were convicted for burying the dead body to cause disappearance of evidence - Since the main charge of murder failed, the conviction under Section 201 IPC also cannot stand - Held that the conviction under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC is unsustainable (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Convictions set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. They be released forthwith unless required in another case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and point only to guilt
- Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary and reliable
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove chain of circumstances
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 135
Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2010
B.R. Gavai, A.S. Chandurkar
Mr. Sumit Joshi (appointed) for appellants, Mr. M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
Shri Ashok s/o Shamrao Naitam and Shri Bawji s/o Ramji Hichami
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli for murder of a child and causing disappearance of evidence
Previous Decisions
Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli convicted appellant no.1 under Section 302 IPC and both appellants under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC on 3.5.2010
Issues
Whether the extra-judicial confession is voluntary and reliable
Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete to prove murder
Whether the conviction under Section 201 IPC is sustainable when the main charge fails
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the extra-judicial confession was not voluntary and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient
Prosecution argued that the extra-judicial confession and other circumstances proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused. Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary and reliable. If the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants take exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No. 87/09 dated 3.5.2010 thereby convicting the appellant no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code...
The prosecution case in brief is as under : Maltabai Hichami was married to one Sunil Madavi. Her husband expired in 2004...
After the completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed...
The learned trial Judge held the accused no.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, however, acquitted the accused no.2 of the said offence...
The learned Sessions Judge, however, convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code...
Procedural History
The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli on 3.5.2010 in Sessions Case No. 87/09. They appealed to the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 15.1.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201, 34
